White Sox v Angels

[ziggy]

Bad calls are a part of the game, so it was unfortunate for the Angels, but that is the way it goes.  At the same time, the ump has looked at all the replays, and he still maintains he made the right call???!!!

Word to Mr. Umpire, "You had a bad angle, so I can understand how you made the original call, but if after watching the replay you still feel you made the right call, then you are incompetent.  IT WASN"T EVEN CLOSE.  Put your ego aside and admit you missed it!!!!"

[WayOutWest]

Bad calls are a part of the game, so it was unfortunate for the Angels, but that is the way it goes.  At the same time, the ump has looked at all the replays, and he still maintains he made the right call???!!!

Word to Mr. Umpire, "You had a bad angle, so I can understand how you made the original call, but if after watching the replay you still feel you made the right call, then you are incompetent.  IT WASN"T EVEN CLOSE.  Put your ego aside and admit you missed it!!!!"

Agreed.

There were three things at play if you look at it objectively.

#1: Bad call, plain and simple, but it's understandable given the umps view.
#2: Bad play by the catcher.  From little league on up you are taught tag the hitter if there is ANY question of the pitch hitting the ground.  The catcher had to pull his glove off the ground after he caught the ball, he should have tagged the hitter to play it safe.
#3: Good play by the hitter.  This was probably the MOST important aspect of the play, the hitter, or coach, had the presence of mind to make a play out of the strike out.  If the hitter had just sulked back to the dugout the inning was over, but he made the smart play and ran for first and it won them the game.  

We see this type of play in the NBA.  Players not going for a ball going out of bounds and costing their team a possesion (#2) and on the flip side players faking a foul or charge and getting the call (#3).

Very bad break for the Angels but understandable.

[Reality]

zig we must have posted at the exact same time.

How about ancient MLB coming up with a sign from umpire that distinguished "strike" call from "out" call?

Instant replay also.

Concur however that Angel catcher should have simply put tag on and played it safe.

[jn]

Adding instant replay to baseball would require cutting back to 6 innings to avoid every game going 4 hours.  

[Reality]

Adding instant replay to baseball would require cutting back to 6 innings to avoid every game going 4 hours.

Nonsense.  We see it at home in 2.3 seconds.  MLB could do the same IF they wanted to.  They dont.  Foul balls, whether a throw beat the runner.  All these can be replayed BAM in 0.5 seconds.  

The judgement calls that would require a long drawn out, yes I'm not for that.

However jn, to cut back on time?  Screw the lollygaggin around between innings.
No lollygaggin between pitches either.  This nonsense where batter steps out, plays with the dirt, circles his feet in the dirt, does a couple air swings.  Stop that crap pronto!  Ditto with the pitcher.  Stepping off the mound, being allowed to go to his mouth (bogus!), walking around.  Stop all that stuff.

Relief pitcher coming in?  Just like the NBA.  Starter out, sub in.  None of this "conference on the mound" crap and player jogging in from bullpen and then still getting 8 warmups.  Even worse is the between innings warmups when the pitcher is the same.  Bogus.



 

[jn]

Easier said than done.  Remember, the NFL already has the same technology and have you ever, and I mean EVER, seen a replay take up less then three minutes?  First, there's the time in between when the coach decides whether to challenge, then the ref conferring with the coach, then announcing the play has been challenged, followed by the ref heading to the review station, reviewing the play (never less than a minute there, often more than the 2 minutes they are officially allowed), ref comes back out and announces decision.  

What you see at home in just a few seconds is ONE angle which frequently is contradicted by the shots from other angles.  

I do agree completely about batters in between pitches.  I absolutely hate guys who have to adjust every piece of clothing and then throw in a few Hail Marys for good measure.   Rickey Henderson was the guy who really brought that to baseball along with the practice of constantly referring to yourself in the third person.  "Rickey Henderson needs to do his Rickey Henderson thing in between pitches. Rickey needs to step out, check Rickey's gloves, adjust Rickey's sack, check Rickeys gloves again, check Rickeys bat, adjust Rickey's helmet then dig Rickey's shoes in.  Then Rickey steps back out of the box and checks all of Rickey's things again."  

P.S. The whole Rickey bit is swiped from comedian David Cross.  :up:  

[Reality]

What you see at home in just a few seconds is ONE angle which frequently is contradicted by the shots from other angles.

Agree, the too close to call stuff let call on field stand and move on.

But how about the bazillions of calls easily overturned by replay.  4 inches outside ball.  With that overhead camera just simply have a light that overules the ump.  Bam.  Done in one second.  For Cleveland Indian lovers remember Eric Gregg absolutely robbing the Indians vs the Marlins with his 6 inches outside strike calls?  I think it would create more interest, not less as people would razz the ump.

When a player slides into the bag and they have the split screen that simultaneously shows ball reaching fielders glove and when players foot does (or does not) hit the bag.  They can do that in 0.5 seconds and do it all the time.  Just have an immediate overuling.

Foul balls where the cameraman freeze frames the land.  Overule, or better yet on too close to call foul balls just have ump give sign to have camera make the call.  I would love that. :up:

Agree, no challenges and all that nonsense.  jn the NFL is a joke.  Sure replay can work and work well, but they bog it down with so much extra nonsense (two challenges, challenge costs a timeout even if you are right lol!), when whistle blew nonsense.  See last weeks game ATL vs Pats that westkoast alludes to.

[westkoast]

Bad calls are a part of the game, so it was unfortunate for the Angels, but that is the way it goes.  At the same time, the ump has looked at all the replays, and he still maintains he made the right call???!!!

Word to Mr. Umpire, "You had a bad angle, so I can understand how you made the original call, but if after watching the replay you still feel you made the right call, then you are incompetent.  IT WASN"T EVEN CLOSE.  Put your ego aside and admit you missed it!!!!"

The call was HORRIBLE.  The Angels understood bad calls happen and actually werent as vocal as I thought they would be.  The ump watching the replay and not admitting he was wrong is such a smack to the face to a classy organization.  This is also like the 4th game in a row for the Angels.  Maybe Fox wants to just beat them to death to ride the ChiSox story  :rofl:  jk

I dont think instant replay needs to be used in the regular season.  When it is a heated playoff race to the WS then yes it should be used.

Speaking of umpire egos....can they all stick to a uniform way of calling balls, strikes, outs, etc etc?    Im sick of umps trying to "stand out" by having their own way to signal.  I wasnt sure if he called the strike or what the hell he was signalling.

[ziggy]

zig we must have posted at the exact same time.

How about ancient MLB coming up with a sign from umpire that distinguished "strike" call from "out" call?

Instant replay also.

Concur however that Angel catcher should have simply put tag on and played it safe.

No way do I like the idea of instant replay for balls and strikes, this would create enormus problems.  I don't like the idea of IR on calling a player out or safe, because to be honest the number of times this kind of call would be overturned would be minisule, the umps get it right better than 99%.
I could understand foul balls and home runs, but even then lets be real.  They have 6 umpires in the post season.  Two umpires have the sole job of calling fair or foul on balls hit to the outfield.  If they can't do that then they shouldn't be an umpire.  Same thing with disputed home runs.  In this case it wouldn't have mattered if they had IR, because the umpire said he made teh right call after viewing replays.

In this situation, the home plate umpire should have first and foremost said clearly "NO CATCH".  That way the catcher knows the situation, and can make the throw.  The ump didn't do that, which was THE major problem.  Secondly if he did make the motion that indicated the batter was out, then the other umpires should have stepped in and overruled.  No one would have a good arguement, if Pierzynski was called out by a field umpire, since he was out.

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, there technically *IS* a difference between a STRIKE and an OUT sign.  Or, at least in the days of ump like Dutch Rennert there was.  A strike is the right hand extended - sort of like a football first down.  An out is the fist or the thumb.

I don't know when umpires started raising a fist for a strike, but it's crap.

As for the play?  I didn't see it, but if you see the guy running to first, why didn't the catcher throw there?  Or did he, and the ball get away or something?  Take no chances - make the play.

Even if the ump missed the call, as the catcher, you've gotta make the play.
 

[Reality]

I don't know when umpires started raising a fist for a strike, but it's crap.

As for the play?  I didn't see it, but if you see the guy running to first, why didn't the catcher throw there?

He rolled the ball back to the mound as catchers do after the 3rd out.  Mistake.

Then AJ Pierazenski broke for 1st.  Initially A.J. took one step towards the dugout.  (Actually his swing and followthru propelled him over the plate.  He gathered himself and for a second was gonna start the walk back)  Sensing the ump might not have rung him up, he took off for 1st.

When someone hears what the exact difference between a called strike 3 for an out and merely a "strike" call, I'd like to hear it.  Joe you may have it right, but could it be like so many ancient MLB rules they have been replaced by habits thus rulebook is overlooked?